Paul, I see you live in Switzerland, where people can demand referendums which are then binding on the government. How does it work there? Can a vote by a slim simple majority on such a crucial issue be binding on the government, or is a higher qualified majority call for, at least where the consequences are very grave? Is the population overall better educated than in the UK and capable of understanding complex issues? (Kikapu also knows Switzerland very well so his views would be welcome, too.)

Tim Drayton wrote:Paul, I see you live in Switzerland, where people can demand referendums which are then binding on the government. How does it work there? Can a vote by a slim simple majority on such a crucial issue be binding on the government, or is a higher qualified majority call for, at least where the consequences are very grave? Is the population overall better educated than in the UK and capable of understanding complex issues? (Kikapu also knows Switzerland very well so his views would be welcome, too.)

I live in Bermuda - my office is in Zurich . saying the UK who has no written constitution and the CH is like saying your have a orange and i have a potato .in all swiss votes there has to be a MIN amount of people vote and a MIN amount on the winnng side .In this case, any change to the law requires both a majority of the valid votes cast and the majority of the cantons (double majority).also a REF is called when 50,000 people ask for it ..

Michael Gove, asked recently in a BBC interview about the £350 m per week for the NHS pledge, said, “I don’t take back anything I said in that campaign.” Yet, in his manifesto for the leadership, he says, “I will take all steps necessary to give the NHS at least another £100 million per week by 2020”.

it turns out the eu will not negotiate the terms of the new deal between the eu and the uk till after uk has exited. it may then take another 10 years to negotiate the deal. did any member of government not know this fact? why was this not mentioned, after all cameron was there negotiating before the referendum. do you sopose it never occured to him to ask.

Last edited by Lordo on Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lordo wrote:it turns out the eu will not negotiate the terms of the new deal between the eu and the uk till after uk has exited. it may then take another 10 years to negotiate the deal. did any member of government not know this fact? why was this not mentioned, after all cameron was there negotiating before the referendum. do you sopose it never occured t him to ask.

What are you suggesting? That he's not all there. You don't suppose the British ruling class, being the oldest ruling class on the planet, could have a problem with inbred stupidity, do you?

I think it is incorrect to say the The EU will not negotiate until after the UK has exited. Notice under article 50 does not end EU membership at that point but provides a two year period in which time Britain will still be a part of the EU and within which negotiations are meant to take place.

Gove suggest an article 50 Notice may not be served until next year....

I think it is incorrect to say the The EU will not negotiate until after the UK has exited. Notice under article 50 does not end EU membership at that point but provides a two year period in which time Britain will still be a part of the EU and within which negotiations are meant to take place.

Gove suggest an article 50 Notice may not be served until next year....

IMO: They seem to be making up the rules as they go along. Logic says 1) Inform of intent to leave and loose certain privileges. 2) Use time to set up new arrangements with EU member States. 3) When arrangements have been made, Issue Article 50, implement new arrangements as a smooth transition over the two years.

If the UK is out of the EU by EU Commission decree I can't see how any of the rules could apply? You're OUT ..... full stop. But then I am not a lawyer!

But I did say ..... there is no way the EU Commissioners could allow a smooth transition and have the UK survive in tact or even better off. That was obvious from Day !.

Tim Drayton wrote:Paul, I see you live in Switzerland, where people can demand referendums which are then binding on the government. How does it work there? Can a vote by a slim simple majority on such a crucial issue be binding on the government, or is a higher qualified majority call for, at least where the consequences are very grave? Is the population overall better educated than in the UK and capable of understanding complex issues? (Kikapu also knows Switzerland very well so his views would be welcome, too.)

I live in Bermuda - my office is in Zurich . saying the UK who has no written constitution and the CH is like saying your have a orange and i have a potato .in all swiss votes there has to be a MIN amount of people vote and a MIN amount on the winnng side .In this case, any change to the law requires both a majority of the valid votes cast and the majority of the cantons (double majority).also a REF is called when 50,000 people ask for it ..

Tim, although I live in Switzerland and not a citizen, I follow elections and it's laws from a distance. What I do know is that Switzerland has a "Direct Democracy", specially on referendums where people can decide on the issues being proposed by whomever as long as they meet the required threshold. You can get more information on the link below.